Trump Immunity Win: "No Comment" by Jack Smith
Listen tothis article
The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that President Donald Trump and all former Presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored the high Court’s majority opinion.
The Supreme Court on Monday capped its term by determining core presidential powers are immune from criminal prosecution, a win for former President Trump that returns his federal case involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election back to a lower court to determine whether his actions leading up to Jan. 6 merit the protection. . . .
The decision takes a sledgehammer to some of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump, determining that various actions Trump took to remain in power after losing the election were indeed protected.
The Supreme Court agreed with our amicus brief in support of presidential immunity. The ruling is good for the office of the President and a huge win for former President Trump. As we’ve seen with the repeated targeting of Trump, prosecuting Presidents could become routine if the Constitution is ignored. The nature of presidential power entitles the President not just to immunity but to presumptive immunity for all official acts, meaning it’s presumed that the acts of the President are “official acts.” The Justices’ ruling sends the decision back to lower courts to determine which of Trump’s acts were official.
What does the high Court’s decision mean for the outstanding cases against Trump? The ruling should be a death blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump, and we expect to see motions to dismiss. This will also likely end Fani Willis’ case against President Trump in Georgia – under the Court’s analysis, the phone call in question in her case should be considered an official act. Smith’s classified documents case will have trouble as well since the documents in question were moved during Trump’s presidency.
Political prosecutions against former President Trump are beginning to crumble, and the Democrat Party is also reeling after the first presidential debate. ACLJ Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy Ric Grenell joins us with his take on the state of the Democrat Party:
I’m never going to buy that the media just found out on Thursday that Joe Biden has early-stage dementia. They’ve been telling us that we’re wrong and that it’s a cheap fake video every time we pointed it out for the last three years. I actually think the media are complicit in this pyramid scheme. The whole thing came crashing down. . . .They could no longer keep up their charade; the whole pyramid scheme came crashing down. So now what we’ve got to do is hold them to see if they want to change horses right now after their primary is over. They should be told that they can’t do it.
After Thursday’s debate, President Biden can no longer hide behind the media. The Democrat Party only has seven weeks before its Convention to change its nomination. Will this be enough time for them to make a change?
Today’s ruling comes just days after the Supreme Court issued a major win for liberty and free speech. In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the destruction-of-evidence statute (18 U.S.C. § 1512) was improper and incorrect – a significant step in making sure that people are not punished by laws that infringe upon their speech. The ACLJ filed an amicus in the case because of the importance of the right to protest peacefully.
The ACLJ is working tirelessly to defend your freedom. Today is the first day of our Life & Liberty Drive – every gift is matched dollar for dollar. Help us continue to fight the historic battles for life and liberty. Give today.
Today’s Sekulow broadcast included how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affects Trump’s January 6 case, the ACLJ’s amicus briefs in recent Supreme Court rulings, and the fallout of the CNN presidential debate between President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump.
Watch the full broadcast below: